A document presented to the Head of East of England CPS, Ms Grace Ononiwu, and the high-flying barrister who is prosecuting Simon Bromley for causing Lee's death by accident, Karim Kahlil Q.C.:
TWO HYPOTHESES AS TO HOW LEE BALKWELL LOST HIS LIFE
by Anthony Bennett, 12 March 2014
A. The claims of the Bromleys, supported for 12 years by two, interlinked, police forces, Essex and Kent: It was an ACCIDENT
Lee was climbing feet first out of an inspection hatch at about 1.00am, and was trapped and killed when Simon Bromley switched on the drum and it suddenly revolved, probably because it had been accidentally left in gear
B. The hypothesis of Les Balkwell, father of Lee Balkwell: It was NO ACCIDENT
That Lee was violently assaulted by one or more members of the Bromley family between 12.00 midnight and 1.00am. Then, in order to fake an accident, Lee was placed, conscious or unconscious, into the cement mixer drum. This was then turned on deliberately by one or more of the Bromleys, either to kill him, or to mask existing injuries
Main facts that are agreed:
1. Lee’s lorry broke down and was repaired by Scammells Commercial between about 3.45pm and 5.30pm on 17 July 2002
2. There was a quantity of setting concrete which needed to be ‘gunned out’ when Lee returned to the Baldwins Farm
3. Lee and Simon Bromley were gunning out the concrete between about 7.45pm and 9.00pm that evening
4. Lee left Baldwins Farm at 11.35pm on the CCTV and returned at 12.03am
5. The concrete mixer was switched on shortly before David Bromley called East of England Ambulance and other emergency services
Main facts that are in dispute:
1. The Bromleys say there was a huge amount of concrete left to drill out, about 6 to 7 tons, which would take 5 to 6 hours’ work. Les Balkwell says that there was only about 1 hours’ concrete left to drill out
2. The Bromleys say that work carried on continuously from 9.00pm to 1.00am. Les Balkwell says that the gunning-out stopped shortly after 9.00pm
3. The Bromleys say that the lorry was taken down the lane between 9.07pm and 9.14pm (CCTV time) merely to ‘add water to make the gunning-out more easy’. Les Balkwell says that before the lorry went down the lane, the drum had expelled all the loose rubble, and the lorry went down the lane for a final rinse or ‘wash-out’, normal procedure at the end of a working day.
4. The Bromleys say that the drum revolved accidentally probably because it was in gear and that Simon Bromley stopped it and then immediately reversed it. Les Balkwell says the lorry was started (and probably moved) twice, each time deliberately, about 3 minutes apart.
Evidence in support of the claim of the Bromleys and the police:1. The claims of Simon Bromley, which can be shown to be full of outright lies, fabrications and evasions 2. The claims of David Bromley, which can be shown to be full of outright lies, fabrications and evasions 3. The claims of Scott Bromley, which contradict the claims of other members of the Bromley family 4. The claims of Linda Bromley, which contradict the claims of other members of the Bromley family
5. The claims of Susan Lawrence, which include obvious lies and fabrications
6. Hearsay evidence of Lorraine Mitchinson and Jamie Nelson who say they were told that work had been carrying on after 9.00pm.
Evidence in support of Les Balkwell’s hypothesis:
A. The amount of concrete left in the drum when Lee arrived back
B. The condition of the concrete
C. The scene at 1.20am
D. The clothes worn by Lee
E. The evidence that there was any work done after 9.14pm (CCTV time)
F. Evidence that work had finished by 9.14pm (CCTV time)
G. Were they climbing in and out of the hatches?
H. When were the inspection hatches taken off?
I. Evidence that the control cable was working and the rod not broken on 17/18 July
J. Evidence that the cab controls were deliberately broken (i.e. after 18 July)
K. Evidence that the stop button was not working
L. Other expert evidence
M. Contradictions in Simon Bromley’s account
N. Contradictions in the accounts of David Bromley
O. The behaviour of Scott Bromley in court
P. Problems in the evidence of Susan Lawrence
Q. Contradictions between the accounts of the Bromleys
R. The strange conduct of the Bromleys
S. The conduct of the police
T. Other circumstantial evidence
U. The evidence of several honest ‘whistleblowing’ intelligence officers
V. The conduct of the CPS
W. What about the medical evidence?
X. What accounts for the two piles of rubble found either side of the hatch and a quantity of rubble still in the drum?
Y. What about the evidence of Lorraine Mitchinson?
[REST OF THIS LONG DOCUMENT SNIPPED]